DescentBB

Interesting supposition as presented by the history channel, was that the Holy Grail was not a inaminate chalice that recieved the blood of christ. Rather the recepticle was Mary Magdalin (sp?) whom Jesus married. Now that is interesting of itself, but what is more interesting is the possibility that Jesus had children.
If so what became of them and, of course, do any of Jesus's offspring have any godlike abilities. I'll leave such supposition to those of you better versed in the subject and tag along to your responses.
Besides, after the porn discussion, most of you need a good religious discussion.

This is a pretty standard anti-Christian position hiding under the guise of legitimate scholarship. There isn't any real evidence of such a liason; it's pure conjecture.

I find it funny that people would suppose (from scripture) that both Jesus and Mary Magdelene existed, but then completely ignore scripture and create an entirely different story about their relationship than what's presented. It's a story that really doesn't even fit the character of either one of them as presented in scripture -- so if you don't trust scripture to present their character right, why trust it to have even identified people who really existed?

Read the Da Vinchi code by Dan Brown gets way into a lot of that stuff..

Couver, i saw the same program & from what i understood from the DaVinci code that possibly j.c & m.m. were married & had children who then fled the country to southern france where the Knights Templar guarded them.
DaVici was, some call one of the brightest minds of history. & I think that someone in his position [unlike the common man] wouldve been able to travel etc, been a likely one to pass down the knowledge [dark ages, burning at the stake times] to be read at a later date.
It would put a more mortal aspect to a religous notion.
is it at all correct even with the slight miss-understandings between the words written & the readers brain seeing what it wants to from his own up-bringing?
cheers
rij

This is the same theme that was in The Last Temptation of Christ. Did this idea start in fiction or in historical studies?

Here's how I interpret these developments:

We live in a culture that worships sex. (I infer this from what I take to be a general belief that sexual fulfillment is necessary and/or sufficient for happiness, and also from the lack of respect people have for the concept of chastity.) Within a context of religious diversity (such as our culture), it is not unusual for elements of different religions to be combined in various ways. As rij said, readers' brains see what they want based on their upbringing. Thus you have the idea a married Jesus (or gay Jesus, etc.)

woodchip wrote:Besides, after the porn discussion, most of you need a good religious discussion.

oh come on, we just had 2 or 3 BIG religious discussions in E&C before the pr0n one even took shape. It was kind of nice for a change to talk about some things OTHER then religion for a while before another one, which usually tends to spark the most flaming, started up. Way to go woody *bitchslap*

Whatever, I'll take my leave of this one as well I guess....

Lothar wrote:This is a pretty standard anti-Christian position hiding under the guise of legitimate scholarship.

I think you are wrong on this one Lothar, as no one was bashing christianity. I for one see nothing wrong with Christ taking a wife and having children. a lack of reference to this in scripture can be explained a couple of different ways. One would be to protect christ's children and the second may be that the Holy Roman Church did not want this know for their own selfish reasons and perhaps edited this out.

Oh and Tyranny, since you like to bslap me I guess this makes you my biatch

Chipper, ther's far too many non-Christian resources on Christ to write it off as Papal conspiracy to protect his family. You mention selfish reason from the Roman Catholic Church (just one Christian sect, btw, albeit the largest). What fathomable reason could it have? It's not enough to say maybe they had a reason without giving a plausible example of one. Frankly I agree with Lothar that the idea has been propogated for the simple purpose of portraying Christ as more man-like so as to undermine the belief that he was more than a man.

Jesus and Mary were married and had children!
What bible have I been reading?

You mentioned the Da Vinci Code above. That book is pure fiction which is presented as scientific research, not the other way around. I haven't read it, and I have absolutely no desire to, but I don't need to; I know its message without having read it. I also agree with Lothar in that these sorts of statements are anti-Christian in nature. It seems odd to me that any researcher would make such claims; any Christian researcher would obviously not do so, and why would any non-Christian care whether or not Christ was married? It seems a little suspicious to me. I also agree with De Riguer's statement. Such "findings" are just the expression of a sex-obsessed, sex-craving society. Maybe someday we'll end our constant sexual arousal and realize that sex is not the be-all and end-all .

Bash before the reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the Christian religion. There were no other sects. The reformation started in 1510. Not to say that this isn't a crock of bullshiz, but they could have done it because at this time the Church was the ultimate power in Europe and really the world.

Bash, put your mind back at some time before the reformation when the only christian church was the Holy Roman Church (catholic). In fact, prior to the reformation, the only main church in Europe was catholic (other than a small population of jews). Great power emmanated from the papal office, perhaps more so than any kings as the church controlled mens souls. So lets look at this in two different ways:

First, offspring of Jesus. If there were offspring how do you think the devout would view them in comparison to the pope? Who should better be head of the church?

Secondly the idea that Christ was mortal enough to have children. If this came to light a few hundred or more years later, we would again have a structural problem with the church. The whole idea of celabacy might be looked on differently as would the integraty of the church itself. Schisms might arise (as we saw later on with the reformation) and the guy at the top of the church hierachy may not like that. Easier to bury the information and keep the status quo.

So looking at the church upper management through the lens of politics and power, I can see how this kind of information may not ever see the light of day. And no Lothar, I am not bashing the christian faith, but rather putting a jaundiced eye to those who controlled it.

Nice Beo, you and I are thinking along the same time line.

I'm not talking about Christian texts, I was referring to Jewish and Muslim religious tracts. Did these other two religions collude with the Pope? I'll grant you I'm no expert on any religious text but I know Christ appears at least as a prophet in the Koran. I'm not sure if there's any mention of him having children or marrying.

So the Torah and the Quron would be up on Christs life?

I just added a caveat about my limited knowledge of the Koran/Torah/Talmud/etc. before I saw your post. Dammit, Chip, get with the program, you're supposed to quote me (as well as add childish capital letters indicating you are doing so) before responding.

Beowulf wrote:Bash before the reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the Christian religion. There were no other sects. The reformation started in 1510.

Ahem, youre forgetting the Eastern Orthodox sect.

BASH wrote:I just added a caveat about my limited knowledge of the Koran/Torah/Talmud/etc. before I saw your post. Dammit, Chip, get with the program, you're supposed to quote me (as well as add childish capital letters indicating you are doing so) before responding.

just watch Jack Van Impe Presents on sunday at midnight. that is my one source for all christian knowledge and perspective. he say's "the divinci code" is bunk... so it must be.

thank the higher power i don't have to think for myself.

bash wrote:I just added a caveat about my limited knowledge of the Koran/Torah/Talmud/etc. before I saw your post. Dammit, Chip, get with the program, you're supposed to quote me (as well as add childish capital letters indicating you are doing so) before responding.

Sorry Bash, but you must realize by now I'm more subtle than that.

TheCops wrote:...just watch Jack Van Impe Presents on sunday at midnight. that is my one source for all christian knowledge and perspective.

It's scary that that guy is successful in my country, he's like the used car salesman of religion. Just thinking of his audience is a depressing experience.

I think it's a mistake to characterize the early church as the Roman Catholic Church. For one thing, it wasn't even based in Rome. Nor did they call themselves Roman Catholics. On those bases alone, I think it's a mistake.

There were always sects, for the sole reason that people will always disagree. They were never as prominent as the Great Schism or Protestant Reformation, since, after all, they *were* sects (not to be confused with sex).

And outside of the European scene, there were naturally other Christian churches as well.

For the RCC to censor Scripture would be like trying to censor today's Internet. Think of it as a network of people propogating information. That's basically what it was. Being a copyist was a legit occupation, and they were everywhere, and their manuscripts were constantly moving around.

Early manuscripts from other parts of the world, including North Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Western Europe have played an active role in textual criticism in translating today's Bible.

im too tired to make a detailed post. but i know that during the Formation of the Roman Catholic Church, many other "Gospels" giving varied accounts of Christ were excluded from the canon, suppressed, and even destroyed. these were the so-called Gnostic Gospels.

the banishment of the Gnostic Gospels from mainstream Christianity put the faith on a trajectory quite different from the one it might have taken. And in deference to Woody's point, it did so to the benefit of the Catholic Church. Moreso, it was no coincidence. The eradication of this "heretical" material was an intentional effort to secure the authority of Rome.

Top Gun wrote:Maybe someday we'll end our constant sexual arousal and realize that sex is not the be-all and end-all .

That's gonna be pretty hard seeing as it's one of our strongest instincts (The 3 F's).

Lothar wrote:This is a pretty standard anti-Christian position hiding under the guise of legitimate scholarship. There isn't any real evidence of such a liason; it's pure conjecture.

This is a pretty standard auotmated Christian defense. That anything the bible says is true is conjecture, even the bible itself admits to it having been written generations after the fact.

hum...no woody. I'm doing the slapping, that makes YOU the biatch

You have your fun on this one, has become an interesting read atleast.

jesus married and moved to france?! rofl
ahem, ok seriously, if he wasn't killed. he's still be alive today (in france heh). he was "perfect" afterall, as far as i know this means neverending life (but not immortality).

this so named "holy grail" isn't even mentioned in the bible afaik.

our culture's preoccupation with sex is nothing new. there have been many many cultures through the ages (many mentioned in the bible) that had extremely liberal (ie: much moreso than in our society) views of sex.

if the cup jesus used to give the wine (figurative blood) to his apostles was actaully his wife. then that would make her a total slut.

Palzon wrote:im too tired to make a detailed post. but i know that during the Formation of the Roman Catholic Church, many other "Gospels" giving varied accounts of Christ were excluded from the canon, suppressed, and even destroyed. these were the so-called Gnostic Gospels.

the banishment of the Gnostic Gospels from mainstream Christianity put the faith on a trajectory quite different from the one it might have taken. And in deference to Woody's point, it did so to the benefit of the Catholic Church. Moreso, it was no coincidence. The eradication of this "heretical" material was an intentional effort to secure the authority of Rome.

Well Palzon, when you get some sleep I would like for you (or anyone else) to expound on the "Gnostic Gospels" as this is the first substantive reply regarding this topic. Are there records of them?

Gnosticism is/was radically different from Christianity. It believes that matter is evil and the body is a prison of the soul. Salvation is attained by being instructed in esoteric knowledge. This is hard to square with the Christian beliefs that God's creation is good, that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was God in the flesh and that salvation comes from faith in Christ.

The Gnostic gospels were discovered only some decades ago. They didnt contain anything about Gnosticism that wasn't already known. The conflict between Christianity and Gnosticism occured in the second century.

"even the bible itself admits to it having been written generations after the fact."

Depends on which part you're talking about. The earliest parts of the New Testament were written by Paul starting in the 50's.

"i know that during the Formation of the Roman Catholic Church, many other "Gospels" giving varied accounts of Christ were excluded from the canon, suppressed, and even destroyed. these were the so-called Gnostic Gospels."

Even the Bible itself says to beware of false prophets, false teachers, false gospels and false Christs.

PR, I can't help but notice you sniped at half of my post (with a rather poor attempt at a parody) without paying any attention to the other half -- and also that you only present one "fact", which is actually false ("the Bible itself says it was written generations after the fact" -- what passage says this?) If you'd like to have legitimate discussion, please take the time to put some legitimate thought into writing a legitimate post.

at the time I didn't have the leisure to read the whole thread Lothar, but since you asked so nicely, I'll clarify my position so you can't misinterpret it again.

This is a pretty standard anti-Christian position hiding under the guise of legitimate scholarship. There isn't any real evidence of such a liason; it's pure conjecture.

I find it funny that people would suppose (from scripture) that both Jesus and Mary Magdelene existed, but then completely ignore scripture and create an entirely different story about their relationship than what's presented. It's a story that really doesn't even fit the character of either one of them as presented in scripture -- so if you don't trust scripture to present their character right, why trust it to have even identified people who really existed?

Your argument is "dont argue fine points of the bible because if the bible is wrong, then the fine points make no difference". This is flawed reasoning, because clearly the amount of truth the Bible contains is not a binary value.

If that doesn't make it clear enough, I'll put it like this. You don't get to send everyone who doesn't like your book into a corner and ignore their theories, because the arguments you're using to keep them there are juvenile. The bible is one of dozens of sources that have been cited (not by me so don't ask for a printout, but the dead sea scrolls for example) as evidence supporting that train of thought. Saying that if you think the bible isn't all true means you can't use passages from the bible to support your argument is rediculous, when they are not used as facts but rather pointing out contradictions.

If you want me to be blunt, I was trying to say your hiding behind the "that's christian bashing and I don't have to listen to it!" line was lame.

PR, I was correct in my interpretation of your post: you presented only one "fact", and you were wrong (do you dispute this?) Your first line was also a parody of my own, which is exactly what I said. I didn't attempt to interpret it any further... I figured I'd just troll you into actually explaining your position instead of sniping from afar. It appears I was successful

So, you complained about me misinterpreting your position (even though I gave no interpretation of your position.) Then you tried to summarize my position as "dont argue fine points of the bible because if the bible is wrong, then the fine points make no difference". I should be the one complaining about misinterpretation.

My position is not about arguing the fine points of the Bible. Rather, it's about arbitrarily choosing to believe certain segments of the Bible, and using those segments of the Bible in concert with an unrelated conjecture (with no other support for that conjecture) in order to support oddball theories. There's nothing wrong with arguing the finer points of the text, or even with treating it as partly true and partly false, as long as you have a good reason to treat certain parts as true and certain parts as false. I asked "why trust scripture for one point but not for another?" I'm not saying, as you wrongly suppose, that it's impossible to treat the Bible as partly true and partly false. Rather, I'm asking what evidence or interpretive rule should be used in order to decide *which* parts are true. If you were to say "we trust the non-miraculous parts of scripture" or "we trust the parts of scripture substantiated by other sources" those would be perfectly reasonable rules, and if one was given in conjunction with a theory, we would at least have some hope of evaluating that theory.

One of the big things missing from the theory woodchip asked about is a rule like this. As far as I can tell, whoever created this theory just arbitrarily decided to trust "Jesus lived" and "Mary Magdalene lived" and "Jesus knew Mary Magdalene" and not to trust certain other parts of scripture. There simply isn't any way to substantiate the theory, which attempts to use scripture as evidence, unless we know have a way to determine which parts of scripture qualify as "evidence" and which are untrustworthy. It's like a theory about a politician's motives based on certain quotes from that politician but ignoring other quotes by him -- unless we have some reason to trust the supporting quotes and not trust the contradicting quotes, we can't give much credibility to the theory (unless, of course, we use the theory to determine which quotes we trust -- which is circularity at its finest.) If, on the other hand, we have good reason to trust certain quotes and not others, we can give credibility to a theory that uses the trustworthy quotes and ignores the untrustworthy ones.

So, the question still stands: why trust the Bible on the points this theory trusts it on, and not trust it on the points this theory contradicts it on?

You say the Bible is one of "dozens of sources" that have been cited to support this idea. Perhaps you should clarify this, including an explanation of what the dozens of sources are, and why those sources are credible -- because I've never heard of any sources that give any sort of support to this theory. (I've also never heard of any early-Christian sources that say anything about the "holy grail", which makes the whole question kind of silly in the first place, but whatever...)

Also, you claim that I was "hiding behind the "that's christian bashing and I don't have to listen to it!" line" (as long as we're being blunt: it was lame of you to make this claim, as well as to neither support nor concede your "the Bible says it was written way later" point.) Again, you misinterpret my position, and badly. I'm not saying woody is Christian-bashing, nor am I saying I don't have to listen to it. I'm just saying, this is an old theory that I've never seen any support for, so it's pure conjecture pretending to be legitimate scholarship. [edit] It's kind of like, if someone came in and said "evolution doesn't work because carbon dating is broken." In a circumstance like that, most people will either flame the guy who posted it, or be like "wake me when you have a legitimate argument." It's just not worth anyone's time to try to argue, because they're citing what's essentially conjecture from an unreliable source. [/edit] There's no reason to give the theory credibility unless someone posts some sort of credible evidence. (I will, however, deal with some of the less credible conjectures that have been given in this thread.)

Woodchip: just so you know, there was no such thing as a "pope" until at least 300 years after the time of Christ -- so if He'd had children, we'd be dealing with great-great-(about 8 more greats)-grandchildren, who wouldn't have presented a very large danger to the papacy. Not to mention, the Eastern Orthodox church was growing by the time there were popes, and it was never under Papal control, so they'd have no reason to wipe out documentation about Jesus' offspring. Also, I don't think the church would've struggled greatly with giving control to Jesus' relatives, as both James and Jude (authors of the books by the same names) were Jesus' brothers and neither claimed the title for themselves. In other words, the early church had little reason, and even less capability, to launch a coverup of the type you suppose.

Some early church history (to amplify Lothar's point):

In 330 Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople which left something of a power vacuum in Rome. This increased the stature of the bishop of Rome. In the 450's Pope Leo I persuaded Attila the Hun not to sack Rome. In the 7th century, the "religion of peace" (ie, Islam) conquered the major Christian cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria -- so Rome and Constantinople were the only major Christian cities left. These developments further increased the power and prestige of the Pope.

The point is, what we think of today as the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for some centuries. Before that time there was no central Christian authority to orchestrate coverups - concering either Jesus putative progeny or the Gnostic gospels.

I stand elucidated. Thanks for the time explaining this.

Lothar, don't backpedal. You can't stick out not one but TWO posts laiden with disdain then retreat to picking apart your own statements word by word and intentionally ignoring any connotation you used previously.

This is a pretty standard anti-Christian position hiding under the guise of legitimate scholarship.

You claim this statement was meant solely to convey "I think that is an insubstantial arguement" which if you are honest you know isn't true. Painting supporters of this theory (which I am not, so don't even start down that road) as "anti-christian" when they have made no hate statements means one of two things. Either you feel threatened by them regardless of how much stock you put in their opinions, or you are completely dismissive of them because you put no stock in their opinions. In either case, there is more present than the fact you put no stock in their opinions. I'm under no delusion that this point will go unflamed, but there's very little I can do should you choose to use literal definitions only and deny that anything not expressly and fully stated in your text was indicated, but (and correct me if I'm wrong, as this was dredged up from ages-old memory) as a reader of poetry I would expect you know perfectly well that is not true.

Now on to my point about the Bible. Yes, I ignored your sniping entirely as I have neither the direct quotes on hand nor the inclination to reread the new testament in order to find them. No, I'm not going to insist my word be taken as fact. If you want to capitolize on my disinclination to invest some 40+ hours of reading in this arguement, you'll have to come up with something to prove me wrong or the point drops.

At this time I'd like to touch on your ascertation that you gave no position on my post during your "trolling". With my first paragraph to this post in mind, please reread this:

PR, I can't help but notice you sniped at half of my post (with a rather poor attempt at a parody) without paying any attention to the other half -- and also that you only present one "fact", which is actually false ("the Bible itself says it was written generations after the fact" -- what passage says this?) If you'd like to have legitimate discussion, please take the time to put some legitimate thought into writing a legitimate post.

Your dismissive attitude speaks volumes. You even veer off in order to critiscize my three-line post for ineloquence. Your opinion is quite clear.

Your next few points purposefully split hairs in order to create a semblance of a platform. I admit my phrasing was poor, if you really want an excuse I have strep throat and penicillin makes me lightheaded. But your insistance that you have beef with "arbitrarily choosing to believe certain segments of the Bible" not "arguing the finer points of the bible" is not really justified in the context I used the latter. I was trying to point out that you attempt to dismiss all arguements related to the truth of various parts of the bible by demanding that one does not use the bible as fact in some place and fiction in others. You counter by stating that it's chosen at random solely to "support oddball theories" and therefor unscientific. What you fail to note is points in the bible being treated as fact are the points that are SUPPORTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS while the points being treated as fiction are DISPUTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS from the period. As I said, my research into these theories is minimal at best, so no, I can't provide you with a cross-referanced list. If you want one read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which while old and in places inaccurate should establish to you that all this isn't just being pulled out of the ass of an angry person bent on upsetting bible supporters.

The next thing you do, after a couple of parapraphs beating your point into the ground, is ask for an explaination as to why the much-coontested "sources" are reliable. All I have to give you is that they are dated by science to the period, which by the way is more than what science lends the Bible in terms of credibility.

Your last paragraph debunks an intentionally overgeneralized statement, so I'm no even going to get into that.

PR, you act as if disdain is a bad thing. There are a few things I openly disdain on this forum, and I make no apologies for disdaining them. Some examples are: theories without support, sniping, and unnecessary insults. It should come as no surprise, then, that my first 2 posts were entirely laden with disdain. Woodchip posted a theory without support (though I hold no ill will toward him for posting it -- there's nothing wrong with curiosity.) So I responded in a way that shows my disdain for theories relying on such arbitrary breakdowns of scripture without any support, and as the thread moved forward, provided clarification (which you call "backpedaling") to show why it is I so disdain such theories.

Now, I don't hold that supporters of the theory are "anti-Christian", as you suppose -- only that the theory itself is. Supporters of the theory might be anti-Christian themselves, or they might be misled, or they might be correct, or any number of other possibilities. But the vast majority of people pushing this and similar theories are not Bible scholars or historians; they're people who watched the show woodchip mentioned (or some similar show) and believe it because they want to discredit Christianity. So I stand by my characterization of it as an anti-Christian position. I'll gladly retract my position if I'm given evidence that would allow me to characterize the position as legitimate scholarship. (This is the same position I hold with respect to, for example, those who assert Carbon Dating doesn't work -- it's probably just an anti-evolution position, but if they post some evidence it's a legitimately scientific position I'll retract that.)

Now, PR, your posts, in contrast to woodchip's, contain all 3 of the things I listed: theories without support (see below), sniping (your whole first post), and unnecessary insults (the whole "lame" thing; assumptions about my motivations). Unlike woodchip, you hold your unsupported theories to be TRUE, rather than matters of curiosity to be discussed. And unlike woodchip, you're not asking questions trying to understand anything (be it the theory, or my motivations) -- you're just putting forth your opinions, mostly not even related to the subject matter at hand. The opinions you've given are almost entirely about my *motivation* and my *character*, or else suggestions that evidence exists but you don't have any inkling to find it. It should come as no surprise, then, that I continue to respond with disdain. I'd be perfectly happy to have a legitimate discussion with you, but you'll have to give me something I can actually analyze and discuss, or ask some questions I can actually research, rather than just sniping and flaming.

So, with that out of the way, let's look at some of the "facts" you posted.

First, you claim that the Bible itself says it was written generations after the fact (I assume you're referring specifically to the New Testament, and the fact of Jesus' life.) In light of this incorrect point, I have a hard time trusting you on any other points. Now, when challenged on this point, you respond that "I have neither the direct quotes on hand nor the inclination to reread the new testament in order to find them" and then you try to place the burden of proof on me: "you'll have to come up with something to prove me wrong or the point drops." There are two things wrong with saying I should prove you wrong: first, since you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you; second, since you're stating the EXISTANCE of a particular quote in the Bible, disproof could only come by me posting the entire New Testament and showing that it does not say anywhere that it was written "generations after the fact". (I happen to know pretty certainly that it doesn't say such a thing, since I've studied it in-depth a number of times, but proving it doesn't would be prohibitively difficult -- I can link to http://bible.gospelcom.net and say "it's not there, see!" but that's not very helpful.) It's completely unreasonable to suggest that I should prove you wrong -- it's up to you to either prove your statement, or admit that you're wrong. You should know better than this -- if you make an assertion about the existance of something, it's up to YOU to provide evidence, rather than being up to the other guy to provide the elusive "negative proof".

You then argue that "points in the bible being treated as fact are the points that are SUPPORTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS while the points being treated as fiction are DISPUTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS from the period." I have no problem with this position -- but I also see no evidence that this is the case within the context of this thread or this theory. This is why I keep asking for evidence relating to the particular theory at hand -- I'd like to know what documents are being used to support it, if any. My own experience with such theories is that they tend to be supported almost entirely by things like the Gnostic gospels or other non-credible sources -- which is why I keep asking for a source. (I do thank you for giving me a book title, though I'd rather have direct identification of the ancient sources in question.) You've given me a rule by which to identify what parts of scripture to take seriously, but I can't very well apply the rule if I don't know what documents your rule refers to, and I'd rather not have to go read an entire book in order to discover that the document in question is the Gospel of Thomas or some other such nonsense.

You also assert that the aforementioned, unnamed documents "are dated by science to the period, which by the way is more than what science lends the Bible in terms of credibility." Now, without knowing what documents you're referring to, I can't tell you whether or not they really *are* dated to the period -- but I can tell you that we have existing New Testament documents dated to 80 AD, and we have letters referencing nearly the complete New Testament as early as 150 AD. Science actually gives fairly good credibility to the New Testament, especially in comparison to other ancient works. Whether that's as good as the mystery documents you claim exist, I don't know.

I look forward to you (or anyone else) posting some actual evidence we can work with and discuss.

*sigh*

I'm not going to post an even longer post than yours lest this become a test of patience above all else. I'll be quick and to the point.

I think that, on this issue, you're probably right except on a few points. What I object to is that you repeatedly and consistantly dismiss theories out of hand, offering nothing further to the discussion. Maybe you're just a contrary sort of person, but I see a lot of "meh this is standard bollocks" posts from you without anything worth reading in them.

Now on a couple of things: I don't demand you prove me wrong on the new testament point, waht I was tryinf to say was I'll let the point go and not use it, but you can't then go ahead and say the bible was written in a timely fashion after the death of Christ without offering proof, since you demanded the same from me. For your information by the way, the Bible is not the various testaments contained therein, and the book itself is dated MUCH later than the documents it compiles. The reason this is an issue is the endless revisions and rewritings it suffered during the compilation process.

Secondly disdain is a bad thing. It is a lack of respect, and if you go around pissing on things all the time you're going to upset your peers. I trust by your age you're mature enough to admit this does in fact affect you regardless of your social tendancies.

You then argue that "points in the bible being treated as fact are the points that are SUPPORTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS while the points being treated as fiction are DISPUTED BY OTHER DOCUMENTS from the period." I have no problem with this position -- but I also see no evidence that this is the case within the context of this thread or this theory.

You already said this was silly in your own post. I shouldn't be forced to use an entire document to support a generalization of that selfsame document. This is the basis that it works on, if you don't want to believe me without ever having viewed said document, then you're just being difficult for the sake of it. Seriously, since I already said multiple times I DONT BELIEVE WHAT THE BOOK HAS TO SAY why would I tell lies that would make it look more credible?



In short, I got a bit sick of your trolling, and you contine to respond by trolling (when you scrape some intelligence together so we can have an arguement has been your standpoint up until now, you can't say that's not deliberately provocative) so there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.

Whoa, let's simmer down here for a moment.

Phoenix, I don't think you're bound to really get anywhere arguing with these folks on the DBB. You're throwing your fists against a giant concrete wall. Step away from the keyboard and think - are you really going to convince someone like Lothar of your points? Or, is it more likely you'll be swung around in circles? Then ask yourself if risking carpel-tunnel syndrome is worth it.